Everything God made is beautiful, so art should be judged primarily on how much it makes us notice this fact.
The difference between this theory and what we have worked with so far is that it does not focus on the gradations between more and less beautiful works, considering that because they all exist, they are all beautiful and that is all there is to it. personally, I doubt this subtlety in this theory, but I want to see what we can learn from it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What?!?! Are you saying what I think you're saying?!?!?!?
No, I don't think I am. What do you think I'm saying?
That everything is beautiful. I suppose this could be partly true, but some things are more beautiful than others.
According to the theory propounded for discussion (which I thought I made clear I did not propound for belief), the difference between the levels of beauty in things was not so much how much beauty they actually had, but how much they made us notice it. This assumes, of course, that the things being considered are all the same sort of thing; we wouldn't want to say that humans and lice were equally beautiful, would we?
And the reason I was even thinking about the idea was because I was having a doubting-of-tonality moment. That is past. Look for a post on it in the very near future!
But, besides that it seems to be partly false, (which is not yet proven, by the way) what can we learn from this theory?
Post a Comment